[dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static functions

[Phil Yang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 7:58 PM
> To: Phil Yang <Phil.Yang at arm.com>; thomas at monjalon.net; Ananyev,
> Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>;
> stephen at networkplumber.org; maxime.coquelin at redhat.com;
> dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: david.marchand at redhat.com; jerinj at marvell.com;
> hemant.agrawal at nxp.com; Honnappa Nagarahalli
> <Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com>; Gavin Hu <Gavin.Hu at arm.com>;
> Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang at arm.com>; Joyce Kong
> <Joyce.Kong at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>; stable at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static functions
> 
> > From: Phil Yang <phil.yang at arm.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:18 AM
> > To: thomas at monjalon.net; Van Haaren, Harry
> <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>;
> > Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>;
> > stephen at networkplumber.org; maxime.coquelin at redhat.com;
> dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: david.marchand at redhat.com; jerinj at marvell.com;
> hemant.agrawal at nxp.com;
> > Honnappa.Nagarahalli at arm.com; gavin.hu at arm.com;
> ruifeng.wang at arm.com;
> > joyce.kong at arm.com; nd at arm.com; stable at dpdk.org
> > Subject: [PATCH v3 07/12] service: remove rte prefix from static functions
> >
> > Fixes: 3cf5eb1546ed ("service: fix and refactor atomic service accesses")
> > Fixes: 21698354c832 ("service: introduce service cores concept")
> > Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Yang <phil.yang at arm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagarahalli at arm.com>
> 
> 
> This patchset needs a rebase since the EAL file movement got merged,
> however I'll review here so we can include some Acks etc and make
> progress.
> 
> Is this really a "Fix"? The internal function names were not exported
> in the .map file, so are not part of public ABI. This is an internal
> naming improvement (thanks for doing cleanup), but I don't think the
> Fixes: tags make sense?
> 
> Also I'm not sure if we want to port this patch back to stable? Changing
> (internal) function names seems like unnecessary churn, and hence risk to a
> stable release, without any benefit?
OK.
I will remove these tags in the next version and split the service core patches from the original series into a series by itself.

Thanks,
Phil

> 
> ---
> 
> <snip patch diff>